About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
to reduce spending. we couldn't come to an agreement on that. so jack lew came to harry reid and said, here's our suggestion. do a sequestration. harry reid rejected it initially. jack lex said, what if we do half of it in defense spending? so an automatic across-the-board cut if we can't find a way to reduce spending in other ways we'll do an across-the-board cut with half of it in defense and the other half of it from other parts of the budget. harry reid agreed with jack le w, the president's chief of staff, so then it came to the senate and went to the house where we begrudgingly agreed. we didn't want to see this. i don't think the white house wanted to see sequestration as well. but this plan that was put in place, the house, the senate and the white house all agreed to was to find some way to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion in long-term spending. the first option was the select committee, the supercommittee, as it was called. it obviously failed in its task. shortly after that, the house of representatives said that the select committee has failed in this task. we cannot have seques
." do you remember when the top democrat in the senate, harry reid, declared just a few weeks ago the democrats would not change the rules in the senate? remember that? wouldn't change the rules to stop senate republicans from abusing the process there. harry reid decided he would just instead make a handshake deal with the republicans' top senator, mitch mcconnell. he said he was satisfied with the republicans just agreeing to be more reasonable on issues like this. remember? they wouldn't change the filibuster rules. they would just agree as gentlemen that the republicans would curtail the excesses of filibustering everything and effectively ruling from the minority. democrats decided to not change the rules on the filibuster and just make that agreement with the republicans instead. they said, you know, at a minimum this will at least improve the confirmation process for the administration's nominees. how is that working out now? just a couple of weeks later. how's that gentleman's agreement going? now that we've just had a filibuster of a cabinet nominee for the first time in
leader harry reid. so we have a very good relationship. and i think that's one that we're going to maintain through this thing. and i would say that senator reid on numerous occasions was concerned about republican nominations. during the bush era we had steven johnson. steven johnson, who incidentally, was a democrat for the e.p.a. administrator. i thought he'd be good. i think that there are several democrats that thought he would not be good, and so harry reid did what he's supposed to do. he interceded in behalf of the democrats who opposed him. well, they had a 60-vote margin. that's fine. they got 61 votes. dirk kempthorne was one that there was objection to. he was up for -- most of you remember him, a former senator from utah. he was up for the secretary of interior, and there are some people objecting to him. and of course that was back during the bush administration. he was nominated and he went ahead and he was confirmed. it was a 60-vote margin. there's nothing unusual about this. getting back to steven johnson, this is even more analogous to what we have what now, b
a balanced budget amendment the kind of things that endear people in the republican primary voter. and harry reid spent more money than any of the other candidates in order to get the weakest republican into the general election knowing that they had a very difficult uphill fight in missouri and sure enough they got the weakest candidate and he blew himself up with the infamous current about illegitimate rape. >> you say it is to put in more quote electable candidates. the conservative wing of the republican party says the most eledgable is the most moderate and that is not necessarily the people they want to see running for office. >> lock, look, looking, look, look, look, let's be clear about this. cross roads support for tea party candidates. we are the largest financial backers of tea party candidates for the senate and the house. we spent over $30 million for tea party senate candidate. over $25 million for house candidates. $2.9 million for marco rubio. more than any other group in the general election. $2.7 million for rand paul. $8 million in colorado for ken buck. $5.1 million in ne
united, and they're going home. i am sure we can get harry reid, he will come back as the speaker will join with us in supporting the plan that the house and senate democrats and the president supports to avoid the sequester and avoid 750,000 americans losing their jobs. we will do it. they put a plan on their table, we put a plan on the table, the house has put zero plans on the table. >> they always talk about what they did in the last congress. those bills are gone. they keep pointing to them as if somehow magically they are going to be resurrected. if they want to resurrect them, put them on the floor and let's vote. >> it is often talked about, sequestration, and we have heard so much about the sequester. will you lay out areas that are most important to democrats that the sequester will impact? >> i will defer to our budget chair because he has worked with all of our caucus on this, but i know other members will be talking about it, and that is where the rubber meets the road in the appropriations committee. that we say, since you mentioned education, when they talk about cu
john boehner talking to the president or mitch mcconnell talking to the vice president or harry reid, there's a few people at the top trying to make these decisions thinking we should all fall. there's little reach the bottom to find out where we are coming from and it's based on seniority. that hasn't worked well. we haven't been able to fix much with that type of attitude so i know when we reach out and have 25, 30 of us and we are reaching across the aisle malae -- i will give you a perfect example. we had a problem with revenue and people said we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. we have people on the other side saying we don't spending problem, we have a revenue problem. they are both right and they are both wrong. how do we get people on the other side if a republican says i don't want any more revenue but they said it might not be that it's just i don't like the way that you spend the money and the democrats say okay. can we come to an agreement? if we vote to have revenue and also you are asking me as a democrat if we have new revenue can you spend it
rally instead of traveling a mile and a half and sitting down to harry reid and coming up with a plan to, to replace these cuts with smarter reforms and smarter approaches. over the last 10 months, the republicans have been working and we have passed two bills to replace these cuts. we need the president to stop campaigning for higher taxes and come back to washington d.c. and the lead. dodge the president is more interested in holding a campaign rally and urging the senate democrats to actually pass the plan. we know there are smarter ways to cut spending and continued to grow our economy. that is why republicans have acted to replace the sequester with what we would argue are smarter cuts. the president says we have to have another tax increase to avoid the sequestered. you got your tax increase. it is time to cut spending in washington. instead of using our military men and women as campaign props, begin to address our problems. the house has acted twice and we should not have to act a third time before the senate begins to do their work. >> we heard the president said last week that
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)